Another thing, since I heard last night for the first time this LeBron to Chicago idea, I immediately started wondering - are LeBron and Rose a good fit? I am not so sure. They both need the ball in their hand. Mo Williams with LeBron wins 60 games as Williams is a very good distance shooter and can catch and shoot. Rose - none of the above. A team with LeBron and Rose would need shooters at the 2, 4 and 5 positions. I just don't see the automatic domination if LeBron goes the the Bulls. They would need to do a lot more roster work.
To everybody: CLEVELAND HAS NO LEVERAGE IN SIGN AND TRADES....HE WALKS AND THE CAVS GET NOTHING IF THEY DONT AGREE TO A LOPSIDED S&T
Of course Cleveland has leverage. "Getting nothing" isn't a bad option if the alternative is paying for a $55 mil roster while having no tv or ticket sales to cover those costs. If they let him walk and don't pay Deng, that number drops to $44 mil, which seems a lot easier to juggle. I really, really doubt LeBron's plan is to tell Cleveland to eat Deng's contract or he walks. It's a hollow threat. Besides, of all his options, nobody has really explained to me how Chicago is any better than the Clippers or New York. As Masbee pointed out, Rose doesn't really fit as an ideal teammate. He'd be living right next door to the hometown he abandoned. He'd be living in Jordan's shadow. What's the upside of Chicago over some of these other destinations?
You are incorrect. The Cavaliers, and only the Cavaliers can offer him more money than anybody. They have a lot of leverage, especially when you consider the difference in millions of dollars over the length of the contract.
Ok here is my idea. Paul Allen brings in James, and tells him that if he signs up now, when Paul Allen either dies, he will leave Lebron 1 Billion dollars in his will in a wink wink nudge nudge deal. The Caveat being, Lebron has to bring a championship to the Rose City in order to get it.
Everybody who said that Cleveland would never take Deng is, I think, correct. But James is not going to agree to a trade where the team he ends up gives up too much to get him. Things to remember: 1. Cleveland's hand: they have James' Bird rights, so that he can make a boatload more by agreeing to a sign and trade than he can from just signing with one of the teams with lotsa cap room. 2. BUT: James makes unfathomable fortunes from his endorsements, so probably wouldn't be hurting that much. 3. PLUS: certain locations (like Miami) have advantages because of much lower taxes that might almost make up for the Bird Rights deal. I like mook's suggestion about the Clippers, but there's something demeaning about that team. It doesn't even have its own arena. And Blake Griffin is in Greg Oden's position at this point. PLUS: I just do not see the Cavs taking Baron Davies. Here's what Cleveland should do: go all out for Phil Jackson. Promise him $20M a year. Present him and LeBron James with contracts to sign that both have provisos "only valid if [the other one] signs up too". Because LeBron James at this point needs to prove that it was Brown's fault and not his that his team crapped out. (Much like Kobe can claim that it was Rudy D's/whoever the hell else they had for a while there fault that the Lakers were so God-awful after Shaq and Phil left.) Or, failing that, get Larry Brown. I guarantee you Larry Brown could've won a championship with that Cleveland roster.
Also, re: the Chicago rumors Is Chicago + James really unbeatable? Let's assume they don't get another boffo free agent. They're still pretty small. The biggest hole is at PF. It makes a lot of sense just to plug James in there. But Noah is small for a C, their best two guards are both PGs... It seems a little bit similar to the team he just left. And, as someone has pointed out, Rose needs the ball A LOT, and is actually very inefficient. Finally, the other part of the rumor is John Calipari. Really? Are peoples' memories that short? I don't recall his Nets being exactly world-beaters. And he's a grade-A slimeball.
I wonder what James would think if Cleveland offered him an unprecendented position: player-GM. He stays, he gets to decide who the franchise employs alongside him. Most likely, he wouldn't be a great GM...but if you're Cleveland, would you rather have the best player of his generation and a sub-par GM (CBA rules anyway constrain what he could do) or a professional GM and no LeBron James? All moves have to be okay'd by the owner anyway, so there's no "trade himself to another team" out.
Yeah, Larry Brown would've made sense this year. I don't know that Cleveland can afford to pay Phil Jackson that kind of money. Maybe. I agree that the big problem with the Clippers is the stigma of it being the Clippers. If I were LeBron, one of my demands would be (in all seriousness) to require that the Clippers re-brand their team. Just toss out the name and all the garbage it conjures in peoples' minds. Get rid of that logo that looked junky in 1981, and is an utter embarrassment now. Come up with a new name, logo, colors, everything. Let it become "The Team LeBron Built" instead of "The Lakers' Retarded Little Brother." (Fuck, they should just do it anyway even if LeBron doesn't tell them to. If Dominos can finally fess up that they've sold shitty pizza for decades--and start turning out pizzas that aren't half bad, why can't the Clips just completely give up on the train wreck of their franchise and declare a marketing mulligan.) Yeah, it'd still have the same ownership. It'd still share an arena. But at least it could get out from under the massive weight that is their name.
LeBron should just appear on LA TV and say: "People of Los Angeles who are tired of having to root for a rapist: the only thing preventing me from coming to the Clippers is that it is owned by the King of All Shitheads, Mr. Donald Sterling. Rise up and bring me his head and I will come to your fair city." That should do it.
